Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Lebanese Journalist and "The Atlantic" Magazine Contributing Writer Kim Ghattas; Interview with Senator Chris Murphy (D- CT); Interview with "Borderland" Director Pamela Yates; Interview with Human Rights Defender and MILPA Communications Coordinator Gabriela Castaneda; Interview with Presidential Historian Timothy Naftali. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired September 17, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Exploding pagers leave hundreds wounded in Lebanon. What this means for the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): When you don't have other more positive sources of identity, you retreat to negative sources of identity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Democratic Senator Chris Murphy explains why he believes America's challenges are crises of community and identity.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABRIELA CASTANEDA, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AND COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR, MILPA: We are tired of that false narrative and we want to make it clear
that immigrants are used as scapegoats. They are blamed for all the problems in the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- with baseless rumors about immigrants, activist Gabriela Castaneda and Director Pamela Yates join the show. Their documentary
"Borderland" exposes the secret border infrastructure across America.
Also, ahead, presidential historian Tim Naftali speaks to Walter Isaacson about this fractured moment in American history.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
In Lebanon, the health ministry is calling on citizens to dump their pagers and it's told hospitals to be on high alert after devices belonging to
members of Hezbollah suddenly exploded, according to Lebanese media.
Now, several people, at least eight, have been killed and thousands have been injured, including Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, according to Iranian
state media.
Hezbollah, Iranian-backed, says that it holds Israel responsible for the attack and vowed retribution. Just yesterday, Israel had spoken about
stepping up its campaign against Hezbollah, but it has not commented on this attack.
This is one of the videos circulating on social media. The attack impacted several areas in Lebanon, particularly in the south suburbs of Beirut, a
known Hezbollah stronghold. And its hospitals are reportedly overwhelmed with incoming casualties.
Now, Kim Ghattas is the author of "Black Wave" and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. She's joining me now live from Beirut. Kim, welcome to the
program. What do you think this is about?
KIM GHATTAS, LEBANESE JOURNALIST AND CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC" MAGAZINE: Well, first of all, it's about absolute chaos and mayhem across
Lebanon. These pagers went off at about 3:30 in the afternoon across Beirut and other cities in the south and the Beqaa Valley and even in Syria.
And yes, they targeted clearly Hezbollah operatives. Nine people were killed, 2,800 injured. But the scenes of ambulances racing around the city,
the mayhem that people have been through, the panic, as people wondered whether this was targeted or generalized, whether they should get rid of
their phones, et cetera. You know, this is a city and a country that has been through a lot over the last year, but also over the last few years.
So, that is the state of the mood of the country.
It was clearly a targeted attack by Israel. against Hezbollah operatives who had gone low tech because they've been the target of assassinations
over the past 10 months. And they've been instructed to, you know, dump their iPhones, get off the internet, disconnect their CCTVs. And as far as
we understand from initial reports, this was a new batch of pagers that the group had received. And how exactly they were detonated, I leave that to
the experts. The next question, of course, is what comes after this?
AMANPOUR: Well, exactly. So, the Israeli government, I'm just going to read their comment, has blamed Israel for the explosions, condemning the
attack as criminal Israeli aggression. Obviously, Israel has not commented, but -- the Lebanese government is what I meant to say has blamed Israel.
The Israeli government has not commented.
But this comes a day after Israel, you know, basically warned, said that it was going to be potentially stepping up its, you know, conflict its
campaign with Hezbollah. Is that what we think is happening, that this is a precursor maybe to a much bigger explosion of war between the two sides?
[13:05:00]
GHATTAS: There are several ways of looking at this, in my view. It's either a way to try to demonstrate to Hezbollah that Israel knows
everything about them, that it can get to the sons of their leaders, because several of them were targeted sons of high-ranking Hezbollah
officials, and to try, in essence, to cow Hezbollah into submission and make clear that an increase of their attacks against Israel will be met
with even further violence, or it could be a prelude to an Israeli large- scale campaign against Israel at a time when Hezbollah is facing the chaos of this this latest very science fiction like, almost, targeted attack
against its operative.
It's very clear that over the last few weeks tension has been rising and there's been a lot of warnings about an escalation on the border between
Lebanon and Israel with very stern warnings from the Biden administration to Israel not to consider a wide-scale campaign against Lebanon because it
cannot achieve militarily whatever it thinks it can achieve. The only outcome here is diplomatic.
AMANPOUR: And, Kim, briefly, obviously Lebanese -- you know, Hezbollah is Iran-backed, and it appears, according to Iranian media, that the Iranian
ambassador was one of those wounded. Now, this just adds to the number of Iranian officials and Iranian supported officials who've been targeted,
assassinated, not to mention the head of Hamas inside Iran over the summer.
I mean, is that a concern again to wait and see whether Iran responds and joins in this war?
GHATTAS: Christiane, over the last 10 months, it's been very clear that Iran and Hezbollah, whatever you think of them, whatever criticism we may
address, we may have of them, are not interested in a wider regional war. And they've been showing pragmatic restraint. Let's call it that way. I
know that's not what it feels like for residents of Northern Israel, but you can just imagine what an all-out war could look like.
Israel has clearly understood that it can keep pushing these red lines. And if it doesn't face, you know, heavy fire back, it keeps pushing those. This
is what I call a game of Middle East roulette. And it's a dangerous one, because at some point, Israel will go too far and it will ignite a regional
conflagration that brings in Hezbollah, but also Syria, Iran, of course, and then eventually, the United States. And that's what the Biden
administration is deeply concerned about.
AMANPOUR: And again, the secretary of state is traveling to the region, not sure his exact stops, but obviously attempting to get a ceasefire
between Israel and Hamas as well. Just very quickly, just describe -- you know, there's a call for citizens to donate blood. I mean, describe, you
know, how bad it is on the streets.
GHATTAS: Well, right now, it's fairly quiet, but it was very chaotic for a few hours. You could hear sirens wailing in cities in Southern Lebanon.
We've seen descriptions of people running on the streets, beating their chests, crying, because you have to remember that these pagers, they went
off a little bit everywhere.
Hezbollah operatives aren't necessarily walking around in uniforms. So, they may -- you know, they may be in civilian clothes. They're buying
groceries. They're at home with their children. A little girl was killed in the Beqaa Valley.
So, suddenly you have, you know, hundreds of explosions going off across the country and people unsure of what is happening in a country that has
been in a state of war over the last year, that has been through an economic collapse, and that has been through the largest non-nuclear
explosion in modern history in just four years ago.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GHATTAS: So, the state of chaos and fear in the country is considerable. And now, of course, also waiting to see, again, what next.
AMANPOUR: Right. Well, Kim, thank you so much for your observations and your analysis. Kim Ghattas from Beirut.
Now, with fewer than 50 days to go until the U.S. election, investigators are still looking into the gunman who was discovered near Former President
Donald Trump's Florida golf course on Sunday. Democrats have been riding high following the ABC News presidential debate between Harris and Trump.
Now, as political violence once again rears its head in the U.S., some politicians are looking for deeper answers to try to fix America's deep
problems. One of them is Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut. Following last week's debate, I spoke to him about solutions for a deeply
fractured nation.
[13:10:00]
Of course, I spoke before the latest apparent assassination attempt. Murphy explained why he thinks America's challenges have more to do with community
and identity.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Senator Chris Murphy, welcome to the program.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yes, thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: I want to first start by asking you your review of the debate between the two presidential candidates. Obviously, all the pundits, the
polls, whether in the United States or even here abroad, have declared Kamala Harris the winner.
But I want to ask you, is it in the areas that she needs to win, that the Democrats need to win, the swing voters, the undecideds?
MURPHY: Well, she did extraordinarily well. You know, she was very specific and direct about her plans to try to lift up the middle-class,
grow the economy from the middle out. Donald Trump, after about 20 minutes, was incoherent, really confused, unable to offer any of his own specific
plans.
The question is, you know, whether this spoke to the group of voters that needs to know more about Kamala Harris. They certainly heard about her
plans, you know, her specific plan to fix the border, her specific plan to address the cost of living, but maybe what is more important is that they
got to see one president on stage and someone else who was in the middle of a two-hour meltdown.
Kamala Harris looked commanding. She was in charge of that stage. You watched her and you thought, that's a president of the United States. And I
do think that's a question that a lot of voters have. They know who she is, but they're not terribly familiar with her as a human being and as a
person. And they saw somebody on that stage who was just ready to lead.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MURPHY: And that may make the difference for a small number of voters.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's one point that you all are grasping onto. But you just said another person in the midst of a two-hour meltdown on stage. The
issue for you, of course, is that this person is at least equal in the total voters are -- and very, very competitive in swing voters with your
candidate.
So, what is it about him? And I ask you this because you've been doing a lot of thinking and a lot of writing about how Democrats need to meet the
moment. Sum up why it is that such a massive proportion of Americans view Donald Trump as a better leader?
MURPHY: Well, I don't know that I have the answer for that question, but I think we do have to acknowledge that we live in a world today where the
economy is getting better, the unemployment rate is as low as it can be, crime is going down, GDP is rising, and there's still a whole bunch of
people in this country who report feeling more unhappy than ever before. They report feeling disconnected from their community, levels of self-
reported loneliness are through the roof.
There are a lot of Americans who are employed but who feel like they don't have meaning and purpose every day when they wake up. And I think we've got
to have a broader conversation in this country about why that is and help give Americans access to positive meaning and identity.
The MAGA movement is an identity, it is a source of connection and meaning for people. And when you don't have other more positive sources of identity
you retreat to negative sources of identity, demagogues who, you know, offer you a worldview in which they explain your troubles as being caused
by people who look and sound different from you.
So, this is a big conversation for the country to have. It's a big conversation for the Democratic Party to have. But I think sometimes we get
lost by thinking that our only job is to try to increase the health of the economy.
Studies show that what it really comes down to, happiness is not just your career or how much money you're making, happiness is the question of how
good are your relationships. Do you feel part of a community, something bigger than yourself? And I think we've done a really bad job of delivering
that kind of purpose and meaning to people, even as we've done a better job of making sure that people have rising wages and have jobs that they can go
to every day.
AMANPOUR: So, yes. I mean, you basically called it -- given all the successes you talk about you, you've called the disaffection a metaphysical
problem, a spiritual crisis. And you have suggested, if I can sum up, a pro-family, pro-community kind of economic nationalism. What exactly do you
mean? And isn't that very much like your opponents? That's what Republicans are always talking about, pro-family, pro-community, you know, and
nationalism when it comes to the economy.
MURPHY: Well, the irony is that Republicans, in particular the MAGA movement, do talk in some of those terms, but then when they're in power,
they do the exact opposite. I do think people are not satisfied being part of a global economy. They want to be part of a unique American economy.
[13:15:00]
Even more specifically, they want to be part of a distinct, unique place. They don't like that our culture has become flattened. They don't like that
our downtowns have become eviscerated and the only place that you can buy things from are transnational retail outlets like Amazon or Google. They
want localness to matter again.
Republicans talk about these issues, but then when they get power, what do they do? They just, you know, pass another massive tax cut for
billionaires. They don't do anything to break up big, consolidated power.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, over the last four years, have actually begun to reinvest in antitrust policy. They've gone after those big consolidated
economic powers. And Kamala Harris was on that stage the other night saying, I have a plan to breathe life back into small businesses. So, your
downtowns come back to life. So, you can feel good about belonging to a place, which is where a lot of people found, meaning, an identity for, you
know, decades and decades.
So, yes, the rhetoric, you know, is familiar because we hear it on the right, but the policy is actually being put into place right now by Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris. And I just think they should talk more about what they're doing to break up consolidated power, to give power to families and
communities, because it's real.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, talk more about what they're doing, lay it out more about what they're doing, not just for Democrats, but also for majority
Republican states and stakeholders. But then, how do you actually change the fundamentals?
I mean, we're talking -- I think what you're saying is either reversing or majorly tweaking 30 plus years of economic policy, which has moved away
from onshore manufacturing and production and the kind of high street economy that you talk about. How do you actually reverse that? And is that
what the Democrat base wants?
MURPHY: Yes. So, that system, you know, I broadly refer to as the neoliberal economic system, where you basically believe that anything that
was good for the markets was good for workers and consumers, that America would be better off part of this big, unchecked, unfettered global
marketplace. All of that was wrong. In fact, we do need a unique American economy. We do need industries that are unique to this country. We do need
healthy local communities, and government policy has to help deliver on that.
OK. So, what are Americans feeling today, right? That Americans are feeling a sense of powerlessness. They work harder and they don't get anything in
return. The people that make decisions about their economic life, about their sort of cultural and community norms, they don't live in their
communities any longer. They're global citizens who run these big private equity firms, these big hedge funds.
And so, breaking up consolidated corporate power is really important. And that's what the Biden administration is doing. Our hospitals should be
owned by people who live in our community. They shouldn't be owned by a private equity firm in London or New York. And the Harris and Biden
administration is doing that. They are right now, as we speak, making it harder for these big private equity firms to buy up our hospitals. That's a
perfect example of what would make people feel better. The most important thing in their life, their health care, being owned by a private locally.
What else is the administration doing? Well, they're addressing the problem of loneliness and disconnection. People are feeling really lonely today.
OK. How do we help people feel more connected? One way is to feel that you've got a community of workers that are supporting your communal efforts
to, you know, get higher wages and better benefits.
This is the first president, Joe Biden, to walk on a picket line. Why? Because he sees unions, not just as a way to raise the prospects and the
fortunes of workers, but also, as a way to build community, where people feel connected to a higher purpose. So, the Biden administration is doing
the sort of beginning work of delivering power back to communities and families, trying to create policies that make it easier for you to find
connection, but it's just the beginning. And so, the next president has to build on this work.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, do you think Democratic candidates have to sound a little bit more like Republicans? Because you certainly are sounding a
little bit Republican right now, in terms of taking that mantra? And as I said, they have become, apparently, the party of the working class, which
the Democrats used to be.
MURPHY: Yes, but they haven't, right? And in fact, if you look at the polling, low-income voters are still voting for Democrats way more often
than they're voting for Republicans.
[13:20:00]
But yes, we need to expose Republicans for the frauds that they are. The only major domestic achievement of their four years in power, when Donald
Trump was in the White House, was a tax cut. 80 to 90 percent of the benefit went to billionaires, corporations, and millionaires. And so, they
talk about standing up for regular working people, but they don't do a great job of it.
Here's the tough part for the Democratic Party. Listen, if we want to be the party of the working class, then we got to be the party of the working
class. That means expanding our tent and that means being willing to bring into our fold people who may not agree with us on every single cultural and
social issue.
I care deeply about the issue of gun control. I care deeply about reproductive right, but I am willing to bring people into our coalition who
might not line up with me on all those issues, because if they are willing to break up consolidated power, if they are willing to support a higher
minimum wage, then having them inside the coalition gives me a better chance to convince them to join us on things like climate change or choice
or guns.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MURPHY: That's a tough conversation for the Democratic Party, but I think it's really important.
AMANPOUR: It's tough not only because it's tough, but because sometimes it doesn't produce results, it produces the opposite. To wit, your hard work
with -- across the aisle on the immigration thing. You've tried to work with Republicans, lead Democratic negotiator on that bipartisan bill that
then Trump essentially torpedoed, because he didn't want it. This is what Vice President Harris said about it at the debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: That bill would have put more resources to allow us to
prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs, and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill? Donald
Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress and said, kill the bill. And you know why? Because he'd prefer to run on a problem instead of
fixing a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Senator, just quickly if you try to meet them where they are and then they turn around and say, no, thank you, then what?
MURPHY: Well, then you take that question to the electorate, and that's what Kamala Harris is doing. She's saying very plainly what happened. We
worked with Republicans to try to pass a bipartisan tough border security bill. We got Republicans in the Senate to agree with us, but then Donald
Trump killed it because he wants the border to be a mess.
And what you've seen since that happened is that more and more voters are starting to see Democrats as the better party on the question of border
security, the gap between the two parties used to be about 20 points when you asked voters, who do you think is better on border security and
immigration? Now, that gap is around 10 points, because people have, you know, seen the Republican Party is exposed.
So, I think this is a pretty tried and true formula. Reach out and try to get accommodation and compromise with Republicans on important issues. And
if they refuse, then expose that for the electorate and make the -- and let the electorate make up their mind as to whether they want a party that's
just obstructionist in charge, who, as I've said over and over again, talks the talk on things that matter to working class voters, but don't actually
deliver or do they want a party, the Democratic Party, who not just cares about these issues, but is actually willing to make compromise and deliver?
AMANPOUR: Big, big issues, big thinking, big thoughts. Thank you so much, Senator Murphy.
MURPHY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: But in the intervening weeks, instead of calming this political moment, the rhetoric has been pushed by Donald Trump and J. D. Vance around
immigration has become even more heated. Trump's baseless claims that immigrants are abducting and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio is leading to
an increase in threats in that small town.
In this tense environment, it's easy to lose sight of the people who are impacted most by the immigration crisis. In a revealing new documentary
called "Borderland," director Pamela Yates exposes the border industrial complex that's deeply entrenched in American society. And I spoke to her
about it and also, with activist Gabriela Castaneda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Pamela Gabriela, welcome to the program. Let me start by asking you, Pamela Yates, what made you -- what was the trigger to create and
produce this film Borderland?
PAMELA YATES, DIRECTOR, "BORDERLAND": I was really disturbed by family separation at the border, people coming into the United States, and
children being ripped from the arms of their parents.
And so, I wanted to make a film not just about that, but about the American response. Who were the Americans that were defying the inhumane and cruel
policies of our government and trying to help people coming into this country, trying to welcome immigrants coming into this country? And it
began there with humanitarian aid workers.
[13:25:00]
And as I was on the border working with humanitarian aid workers, I met people at the Border Network for Human Rights. And they had a way of
organizing among immigrants. and immigrant families to claim their rights, to understand their constitutional rights as people in the United States,
and to organize and strengthen their communities for better lives. And that was really the origin. And that was how I met Gabriela Castaneda as well.
AMANPOUR: So, Gabriella, let me ask you then when you were approached by Pamela, I don't know, was there a risk for you of taking part in such a
public, obviously, you know, thing that was going to be broadcast and hopefully seen by a lot of people?
GABRIELA CASTANEDA, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AND COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR, MILPA: I didn't think about that. I didn't think about the risk. I thought
about how people needed to know that they have rights in this country, especially after I was a former undocumented immigrant and suffered many
abuses coming from even law enforcement agencies. So, I thought my story needed to be told out, because I was not only representing myself, I was
representing the millions of undocumented immigrants that live in this country.
AMANPOUR: And, Gabriela, you yourself are separated from your husband, right? Because your children were born in the United States. They are
American citizens. You, as you just said, you're documented, but not your husband.
CASTANEDA: Yes, we got separated back in 2007. My husband was stopped by the sheriff for going five miles over the speed limit. And when he was
asked to produce a state identification, and he could not produce it because he was undocumented, the sheriff called the immigration
authorities. And what happened is that my husband was sent to prison for almost six years.
And back then, I was undocumented and became a single mom, left to fend for myself and our three U.S. citizen children. It was a very, very tough
situation. And I decided that I no longer wanted to be a victim, that I no longer wanted to continue crying for my situation, but I -- that I needed
to do something about it and it changed the course of my life. And so, I became a human rights promoter and spread the information with other
families that were going through the same situation as me.
AMANPOUR: So, I -- that's -- it's really interesting, of course, because it's -- Pamela, this film is done from a slightly different angle. So, what
I want to do is play one of the clips you've sent us. This particularly concerns basically examining ICE and all its hubs, not just to the border,
but around the country. Here's this clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX GIL, DIGITAL HUMANIST: ICE is everywhere. The border is everywhere. If you want to look at them, use the tools they use to look at you. So, we
extracted the data and visualized it, and then when that first image came to us, we knew that that is a story we need to tell, which is ICE is
everywhere. It's not just in the U.S.-Mexico border and the big metropolis like New York or Miami or L.A, no, it's everywhere. It's in Ohio, it's in
Missouri, it's in Utah. It's everywhere that an ICE detention keeps our families in detention.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: ICE is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Operation. Pamela, tell me what that means, the fact that it's everywhere does what?
YATES: What it means is that anyone who is in this country without documents is afraid 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And that fear
immobilizes them. But what the Border Network for Human Rights and the Movement for Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania, MILPA, do is try to
mitigate that fear, try to teach people what their rights are, and they're trying to build a movement in the shadow of what we call the border
industrial complex, of which ICE is the center of.
It means that you can walk down your street and pass your nail parlor and get a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts, and right next to that is an ICE
detention center, and you might not even know it. And they're all over the country.
So, at any moment, if you don't have documents in the United States, you're an undocumented immigrant, you can be captured, incarcerated, and deported.
And that fear is everywhere. And that's what we're trying to say.
You know, I was trying to think of what could we contribute to the story about immigration. And I found it in a group of immigrant PhD professors
working at Columbia University, they call themselves the XP Method. And they're digital humanists who gathered information about the border
industrial complex, and they visualized the data. And we found out that in this fiscal year alone, 2024, the estimated cost is $25 billion.
[13:30:00]
So, who and what, and where is this money going in congressional districts used to -- which is making profit and built on the back of the suffering of
immigrants?
CASTANEDA: I want to echo on what Pamela just said, the laws that are applied at the border affect us all. When we support legislation against
immigrants who are just recently crossing the border, we need to understand that we're supporting legislation against the millions of immigrants who
have already lived in this country for decades and who have not been able to regularize their immigration status.
So, we are -- we might be supporting laws that affect our neighbors or friends or family members. And very often, I hear the phrase that the
immigration system is broken. I've come to the realization that the immigration system was designed to work just like that because it allows
the border industrial complex, which is the large companies to benefit from the suffering of immigrants.
If they are able to sell a false narrative that we have chaos and mayhem at the border and that immigrants are the enemy rather than the solution, then
it's easier for them to sell their products. We are tired of that false narrative and we want to make it clear that immigrants are used as
scapegoats. They are blamed for all the problems in the United States. And we are bombarded daily with the false and immoral idea that if there are no
jobs or decent wages or access to free medical care, which is possible in the richest nation in the world, it's because of immigrants.
The truth is that the border and immigrants are not the problem, but inequality is our problem. And so, this is a direct attack, not only on
immigrants, but on every poor person living in this country who are more than 140 million people surviving in the richest country in the nation.
This is immoral. We do not have a money problem. We have a problem of lack of values and principles in our leaders from both parties.
AMANPOUR: Before I get to another clip, I want to build on what Gabriela is just saying. And that is, obviously, everybody knows, because it's gone
viral around the world, that, you know, the Trump and what he said on the debate about Haitian immigrants in, I don't know, Ohio, eating household
pets. How does that, obviously debunked statement? It's a lie, there's no evidence.
Pamela, how do you think that kind of, you know, narrative from those who would be president, or that who would be president, affects, you know, the
whole situation you're trying to expose?
YATES: Exactly. Well, I think that immigration has always been really important, but right now, it's particularly consequential. And in our film,
we talk about how all authoritarians or authoritarian governments try to paint the immigrants as the other. And -- but -- and that affects not only
immigrants, but it affects all of us. But he -- because it affects our values and it affects our freedoms here in the United States.
AMANPOUR: And Gabrielle, I want to give you an opportunity to react to what Trump said. Because this is the way, for better or for worse, that
main leaders, whether it's in the United States or around the world, certainly here in Europe, demonize immigrants. What went through your head
when you heard Trump saying that about household pets?
CASTANEDA: I'm not surprised anymore by any of the false accusations that ex-president Trump made against immigrants. But I am certainly concerned
about those accusations beginning to spread and people believing them. We went from being rapists and criminals and stealing jobs. And now, we are
also eating pets in other people's communities.
And so, that just tells you a little bit of what Pamela was saying before that we are being portrayed as different. We're not the same. So, it's
easier to dehumanize somebody that is not like you. They're different. They're dangerous. And so, I think it's important that we understand that
we must not believe everything we see on the internet and that fact checking is -- needs to be part of our daily activity. We cannot believe
everything that is being said because demonizing immigrants is killing immigrants.
AMANPOUR: So, I'm going to also now play another clip from the film, and this is you again. As you mentioned, you're now a legal resident. You did
live in limbo for many, many years. And you brought -- or rather fought, several ICE attempts to deport you. Here's a little clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASTANEDA: The judge is basing his accusations on a report prepared by ICE. Stating that my house was used to stash undocumented immigrants and
that I was transporting these undocumented immigrants within the country.
[13:35:00]
This report was prepared several years ago, exactly right after we held protests outside the detention center, and they didn't like it. Whether
they like it or not, they can't deport me for that and they know that, but they can put together a report that's going to make me look bad and say,
you know what, we're not deporting you for that. You're more than welcome to protest and do whatever you want. That's your First Amendment right? Oh,
but you know what? We can deport you for these things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Gabriela, did you, I mean, through a lawyer or whatever, try to, well, confront them about this? What did they say?
CASTANEDA: It was all false accusations. They didn't know what to invent because, obviously, I was attacking that status quo. Well, it's not very
usual that undocumented immigrants are speaking up and standing up and defending their rights like I am -- like I do. I think I'm always fighting
for justice and dignity and rights and I am -- I'm able to see people in the face and tell them when they're wrong.
One of the things that I do wanted to mention is that they could not prove any single accusation, and that's why I was able to win. I was doing a lot
of prayer and I was doing what I had to do. And for -- the message that I want to sell to other social fighters, human rights offenders is that we
cannot live in fear of what may happen to me if I speak up.
AMANPOUR: So, Pamela finally, you know, it's not -- perhaps it's an accident, but maybe not, it's coming out. It's taken five years to do this
film. It's coming out right ahead of this election. And as you know, immigration is a major issue for both parties. You've seen, it's not just
Trump saying what he says. Back then President Obama was called the deporter in chief. Now, you saw the Democrats go and agreed to a very, very
conservative bill by one of the most conservative Republicans, that was torpedoed by Trump for all sorts of personal political reasons. But where's
the hope, in your mind, for a different approach to immigration?
YATES: Well, I'm a human rights defender myself, and I use cinema as my human rights practice. So, we're now going to open this film in 26 U.S.
cities. And the idea is to get people active, activated, and talking about where this can go.
You know, we haven't had immigration reform in the United States since 1990. And that we really, really need. But we want to start a conversation
that may be a little bit outside of the mainstream. And that conversation concerns how we can take a different approach. How we can take a radical
new approach.
In the town that I live in, in the small community that I live in, there are a lot of places that are shut down because there's nobody to work in
them. And that's true all over the country. We now know that immigrants and essential workers have been the lifeblood of our economy and really kept
our economy afloat during the pandemic. And that's what we'd like the film to question, to address, and to gather people around.
I mean, I think that when you meet Gabriela in "Borderland," in the film, you'll understand even more in depth what I mean. She's an incredible
leader. She's a local leader. She's a national leader. And there are other protagonists in the film that are engaging and have ideas about who
immigrants are and what immigrants can do and will do and contribute to this country.
AMANPOUR: Well, it couldn't be more timely and more vital. So, Pamela Yates and Gabriela Castaneda, thank you so much.
YATES: Thank you, Christiane.
CASTANEDA: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, this election season, we can confidently say is like no other, with Trump's indictments, Biden bowing out, Kamala Harris stepping
in, and now, an apparent second assassination attempt against Trump at his Florida golf course.
Presidential historian Timothy Naftali talks to Walter Isaacson about this weekend's troubling event and what it says about American politics today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Tim Naftali, welcome to the show.
TIMOTHY NAFTALI, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Thank you very much, Walter.
ISAACSON: It's been an incredible political year, all sorts of twists and turns, but the most unsettling have been these violent turns. Now, we've
seen the second assassination attempt against President Trump -- Former President Trump. Tell me what was going through your head when you heard
that this week.
NAFTALI: Well, initially it was, oh, God, not again. It was traumatic. The first time someone attempted to assassinate President Trump in -- Former
President Trump, in July was traumatic.
[13:40:00]
It was reminiscent of the worst moments in our political history. And for something similar -- fortunately the attempted assassin did not get a shot
off this time, but for something similar to have occurred was equally traumatic. It raised questions in my mind, first of all, about the Secret
Service's ability to protect Mr. Trump, but it also reminded me of how we live in a tinderbox, a political tinderbox.
Our political environment is so fraught. It is so toxic. That disturbed minds -- we don't know a lot about Mr. Routh, but the material -- the
information that's coming out about this second wannabe assassin is that he seemed to trouble -- another troubled individual, but the -- we live in a
climate that is so fraught that it literally provokes the troubled among us to do terrible things.
ISAACSON: I just want to clarify as we speak that the investigation is ongoing and to a suspected assassination attempt. The climate is fraught,
but it's partly fraught because of the political rhetoric. You've said that these incidents feed off of a desperate and intractable polarization in
which apocalyptic language is used to demonize both sides of the political aisle. Let's start with the just rhetoric. Is that one of the things adding
to this?
NAFTALI: I've spent a little bit of time studying the Kennedy years and in trying to figure out Lee Harvey Oswald a long time ago, people didn't have
the -- didn't understand the concept of self-radicalization. But as a result of 9/11, and of the challenge against international terrorism,
people have begun to understand how individuals can be radicalized by what they read and what they see.
And we have experienced piece of technological change that you've written so notably about, Walter. We have seen even more opportunities and more
platforms with the kinds of information that will push people who are already unwell, over the edge, to actually use -- maybe to take -- to
actually create the violence that they're watching on screen.
And I'm not a psychologist and I don't play one on television, but if you look at the history of many of the would-be and successful assassins,
political assassins in our country, many of them were self-radicalized. So, the language we use in the political sphere to describe those we disagree
with matters.
ISAACSON: Let me quote you that President Trump said that the would-be assassin acted on highly inflammatory language of the Democrats. And he's
blamed it on the Democrats. And J. D. Vance said, no one has tried to kill Kamala Harris in the last two months, and two people have now tried to kill
Donald Trump. I think it's a pretty good evidence that the left needs to tone down the rhetoric and cut this crap out.
To what extent is it something that's happening more on the Democratic side, this demonization, or is it a both sides phenomenon?
NAFTALI: I think the effort to spin this horrific environmental problem in one direction or another only makes it worse. We need to only ask Mr.
Pelosi about the consequences of extreme rhetoric on the right. And so, let's just -- could we have the political version of a ceasefire about
saying, which side is more responsible for this language?
There is no doubt in my mind that in July it was important for Democrats, as well as Republicans, to tone down the language. The president of the
United States made a -- I think, a very pointed and excellent speech, where he talked about the importance of bringing down the volume, bringing down
the temperature. And I would argue that the -- sort of at the core of the Harris campaign is a desire to turn the page. And she's using --
particularly her running mate, is using humor to try to weaken Donald Trump's appeal. The whole concept of the weirdness factor.
[13:45:00]
So, I would argue that we've seen, certainly on one side, some reduction in the apocalyptic language that was around in July. This isn't -- by the way,
this is not to say that any political candidate deserves to be treated with violence. In our country, violence is unacceptable as a way of resolving
political disputes. I mean, after all, in the 19th century, we saw the consequences of trying -- of using violence to settle disagreements. So, I
don't think, Democrats or Republicans should be held responsible for the acts of madmen.
ISAACSON: There's something deeper though going on here, I think, and you're a historian that has specialized in many times in the 1960s. You
were director of the Nixon Library, you studied Watergate, you also studied Kennedy Cuban Missile Crisis. And back then, and you've cited him, there
was a great historian, Richard Hofstadter, who talked about the paranoid style in American politics, and I know you've used him in your own work.
Tell me about this paranoid style and whether this conspiracy notions that are bubbling up again are part of a cycle in American history.
NAFTALI: When Richard Hofstadter wrote a wonderful piece about the paranoid style, it was 1963 and it was before Lee Harvey Oswald killed
Kennedy. The first time he gave a speech and then, of course, he rewrote it afterwards and it was published after the Kennedy assassination.
But he was describing the edges, Walter, of our political community, the edges, and the edges were these extreme views. And he went through our
history and he mentioned different small groups. We call them third-parties who had unusually conspiratorial views, the people who worried about
Mason's, the anima sonic party, the people worried about immigrants.
And he explained that in our political culture, there is the capacity for conspiratorial thinking, and that it's also always there. It's like bread
in the bone. But one thing that he made clear was that it was the outer edge, and occasionally it moves closer to the center. He was concerned
about a group called the John Birch Society, which is very far-right, very anticommunist, a group of people who thought that Dwight Eisenhower was an
enemy of the United States and somehow a tool of the Soviets. And he worried about the effect they were having on the Republican Party. They
supported ultimately the nominee of the Republican Party in 1964, Barry Goldwater. Although, Barry Goldwater himself was not a captive of such
conspiratorial thinking.
But my point in bringing this up is that he was talking about the outer edges. We are living in a political moment, Walter, when those outer edges
are at the center of our politics.
ISAACSON: What's bringing them to the center of our politics then?
NAFTALI: Well, I would say that Donald Trump and the leadership of the Trumpist Republican Party has done that. They have both responded to anger
outside of Washington, and they've helped stir that anger. There is -- there are conspiratorial thinkers on the left, there's no doubt about it,
but they're not at the center of the Democratic Party.
ISAACSON: Do you think that social media has helped bring it to the center of our discourse?
NAFTALI: There's no doubt about it. There's no doubt about it. I mean, look, the way you would communicate these ideas in the 1960s was through
pamphlets. And you can see the pervasiveness of these pamphlets, but that was a slower way of basically of spreading toxicity. We have an
instantaneous way of doing it now.
And look at the way that people use not only memes, but little snippets of video to drive home dramatically a certain point of view. Most recently in
discussing this horrific lie about immigrants eating pets.
ISAACSON: Let me push back a little, because we've had for a whole year Democrats sort of saying, all of democracy is threatened in this election.
I mean, isn't that a bit over the top to say, somebody's going to destroy our democracy?
NAFTALI: Apocalyptic language never serves us very well. We live in an era where outrage is used to fuel political campaigns, actually to fund them.
[13:50:00]
And anybody watching now will know that they've received requests to contribute money and it's always the most extreme. So, we do live in an era
of outrage. I do believe that apocalyptic language is not in the interest of the country.
We've got to keep in mind that there's always another election. And that and then if you lose the election, you'll have another chance. And you
don't want to take the ball home with you. You don't want to destroy the football field. If you lose, you lose, you move on.
In 2021, Donald Trump did something that no predecessor of his that every even thought to do, which was to contest a peaceful transition of power, in
a sense giving license to a lot of Americans to say, hey, you know what, if I don't like the outcome of the election, maybe it was fraud that caused
that election outcome. Maybe it really didn't happen.
So, we are in a dangerous moment where -- and the left has used this apocalyptic language. I would argue though that January 6th should leave an
indelible impression upon all of us, that very divisive language can lead to violence on a grand scale.
ISAACSON: You've talked about how when a greatest generation was in power, a generation that had gone through World War II together, the Depression
together, there was more of a sense of common purpose, and yet, you're a historian of the 1960s. And when you look at this period, it sort of
reminds me of the 1960s, including the riots and the divisions in the streets but also the theory of a deep state and, you you know, you didn't
know Watergate and Nixon stuff, he believed that they, the paranoid, deep state was out to get him. Don't you see parallels?
NAFTALI: Well, I want to -- there are two points about this. Of course, there are certain parallels. But there are real differences. First of all,
after Martin Luther King was assassinated in April of 1968, the House passed with bipartisan support, the Fair Housing Act, which is the third
great civil rights act of the 1960s.
Republican members of the House, including George Herbert Walker Bush, voted for this civil rights act. Not simply because Martin Luther King had
been assassinated, but also out of a sense of fairness to Americans of color who were serving in Vietnam. There was a sense of a joint bipartisan
sense that we've got to do better.
This is amidst the swirling issues that you raise. There was still a possibility among elected officials to work together and set a national
tone to show that we were better than we've been before. I just don't see - - with the exception of the infrastructure bill, I don't see this bipartisan capacity to set a better tone at the highest level. Elite
opinion is not the most important thing, but it matters. And we have a very divided elite.
Now, the other parallels, of course, the very fact that in 1968 you have a president who could have run again, who decides not to run again, steps
aside because of a very unpopular war. But that unpopular war is quite different from Israel's war with Hamas. Americans were fighting the war in
Vietnam. It was a much more -- the effects on us as a people were much graver.
I'm not suggesting that the humanitarian side of the -- you know, Israel's war with Hamas doesn't matter, I'm just saying that as a political
challenge, it was -- didn't reach as deeply into the American soul and psyche and politics as did Vietnam. So, you had Vietnam, which was
certainly dividing us.
But the country's leaders were still able to make changes. They weren't paralyzed by this chain -- by what was going on, by the social and cultural
revolution that was going on around them. Whereas, I feel right now, we are stuck. And when you have one of the two political parties that is so
animated by conspiracy thinking, basically taking the paranoid style from the outer edge of our politics, right to the center of it, it makes
national conciliation harder, not blaming everything on the right.
[13:55:00]
But I am saying that we have seen a shift towards more conspiratorial thinking, and that is mainly on one side and not the other. It shouldn't be
on either side.
ISAACSON: Tim Niftali, thank you so much for joining us.
NAFTALI: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And, finally, tonight, well, it seems Moo Deng is the medicine we all need. This pygmy hippo is one of the internet's biggest stars right
now. And the zookeepers in Thailand, where she lives, can't quite believe it after a viral video of this bouncing babe got over 20 million views.
People are now flocking to see her in person. The zoo says normally at this time of year, they'd see about 800 visitors per weekday. But now, 3,000 to
4,000 thousand people are coming to catch a glimpse. Unlike the common hippo, which can be a violent killer in the wild, this pygmy version is
typically not dangerous to humans. So, kudos, Moo Deng, for making the world a little bit brighter.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episodes shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank
you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
